Historical comparisons can be useful. In 1766, the America colonies were in turmoil having reacted angrily to the Stamp tax of the year before, an internal tax that depended on some colonists becoming stamp distributors and selling the taxed stamps to other colonists. Imperial policymakers were beginning to realize that any detested policy that required the colonists themselves to implement could never work as well as policies that the colonists actually supported and wanted. Suspected stamp distributors were easily convinced by their neighbors not to sell stamps, and without the consent and support of the colonies the stamp tax failed.

Yet during this same period, 1764-1766, a much less well known tax, a tax on molasses commonly called the Sugar Act, did work. Colonists paid it and it raised the revenue Parliament sought. Much more concerned about what was not working than what was, Parliament called upon Benjamin Franklin, recognized as an expert on all matters pertaining to the North American colonies, and Franklin stood before the House of Commons in January 1766 to answer a long series of questions. That day Franklin explained how the British Empire actually worked to any who cared to listen. He provided a commonsense approach to governing complex systems: that to make them work those who govern should take into account the needs and feelings of the people who live in them.

Franklin explained that the colonists felt all parliamentary taxation was wrong. Yet there was a crucial and practical difference between the Stamp and Sugar taxes. The first was an internal tax that depended on the colonists’ consent and cooperation for enforcement. The second was an external tax often collected in West Indian ports, places where British officials and the navy had a real presence. British imperial agents oversaw and collected the Sugar Tax while the Stamp Tax, to work, required that stamps be sold by the colonists themselves. That day before Parliament, Franklin advised British lawmakers to focus on imperial policies that could be enforced unobtrusively without provoking anger and conflict and that were less obviously and openly despised, and to give up on policies that were universally loathed and that would only generate bad feeling for as long as they existed.

Franklin was a smart man and his lesson is timeless for those who would seek to govern complex systems that involve many different groups with many different needs. In the case of proposed reorganization of New Jersey higher education there are suggestions that seem agreeable to all parties affected and other suggestions that are far from agreeable.

Regardless of whether those with the power to impose decisions have the power to do it, Franklin’s advice would be to do that which is least likely to cause unnecessary conflict and bad feeling. He would advise finding other ways to achieve goals than by forcing policies that only cause conflict and bad feeling. Forget the Stamp Tax and unnecessary provocation; focus on the policies that don’t produce massive disruption and angry reaction. In the case before us, both parties to the Rutgers-New Brunswick and medical school mergers seem eager to have it done. For Franklin that would be equivalent to the Sugar Act. Some might have misgivings, but on the whole the power to do a thing and the willingness of those to whom the thing is being done to accept largely overlap.

The case of the proposed Rutgers-Camden Rowan merger would remind Franklin of the Stamp Tax. Perhaps Parliament could have sent enough troops to make it work; perhaps Parliament could have used its undeniable strength and authority to force it through. But it could only lead to bad feeling, anger, and a loss of affection and support since simply to do a thing in this case could never lead to those having it done to them being happy to have it done. Franklin saw pursuit of such a policy as those responsible for a system forgetting the easy, commonsense, practical wisdom that he advised all those with power to exercise: do what you can do easily as much as you need to; avoid what you can’t do easily, and avoid provoking and upsetting those whose cheerful affection and desire to be of service is highly useful to you and that you will always have if they are not provoked and upset. Unprovoked and not upset they will work with you to find ways to accomplish your goals. As Franklin said in response to the question if troops were sent to America would they find a rebellion?: “they will not find a rebellion; they may very well make one.”

Franklin usually knew best. Those with great power should not make rebellions or insist on seeking difficult and needlessly complicated paths when easy paths can be found. Often the easiest and most harmonious way to do a thing can be best explained by the very people whom those in power would seek to do it to. Listen to the great majority of those affected that do not want the Rutgers-Camden Rowan merger. Ideas such as close partnerships between the South Jersey colleges and universities and a consortium model can provide what those in power want while ensuring the continued cheerful affection of those who make the universities work so well, something that is essential for any effort to improve higher education in southern New Jersey.